Tweet
8 COMMUNITIES INSTEAD OF 13 IN YEREVAN
By Ara Martirosian
AZG Armenian Daily
20/04/2006
Community Heads Appointed or Elected?
As it is known, the issue of Yerevan's status was one of the key
issues before constitutional amendments were adopted. After a long
wait the amended constitution declared that the capital should have
the status of a community and its head should be elected.
Currently two options of Yerevan's governance system are being
discussed.
According to sources close to the government, the first option
suggests decreasing the number of communities from 13 to 8 and then
making elective the posts of city mayor and community heads.
The second option suggests making mayoralty elective and leaving the
community heads to be appointed by the government.
It's hard to say now which option will have more appeal for the
authorities but one can assume that the latter will strive to pass
the first one. Why?
For the post-Soviet Armenian authorities the issue of elective
mayoralty was an argumentative issue. Neither the former nor the
present-day presidents and authorities wanted to have elective
mayoralty in Yerevan. While taking the mayor's office, Vano Siradekhian
openly stated that it is inadmissible to have elective mayor. The
same opinion dominates today, and the authorities stubbornly refuse
to yield to the EU's demand. Elective mayoralty used to be viewed as
a threat to the executive power as the overwhelming majority of our
country's human and natural resources is concentrated in the capital.
Therefore, the option of elective mayor and community heads is
preferable for the authorities. The danger of this option lies in the
fact that Yerevan will get divided and cease being one united organism
with all negative consequences stemming out. This separates Yerevan
with its mayor and community heads tangled up in their interests
and powers, with no vertical subordination to the authorities and
consequent irresponsibility. This may suit well for the authorities
but would be disastrous for the capital.
The mess in the city construction will continue, green zones will
keep vanishing, garbage-collecting and transport issues will remain
unsolved as the mayor and community heads will go on blaming each
other for the city's problems.
For Yerevan and its residents elective mayor and appointed community
heads should be more preferable as it will help keep the capital
united, will secure vertical subordination and will make clear who
is responsible for city maintenance. For the abovementioned reasons,
it's hard though to believe that this option will be chosen.
By Ara Martirosian
AZG Armenian Daily
20/04/2006
Community Heads Appointed or Elected?
As it is known, the issue of Yerevan's status was one of the key
issues before constitutional amendments were adopted. After a long
wait the amended constitution declared that the capital should have
the status of a community and its head should be elected.
Currently two options of Yerevan's governance system are being
discussed.
According to sources close to the government, the first option
suggests decreasing the number of communities from 13 to 8 and then
making elective the posts of city mayor and community heads.
The second option suggests making mayoralty elective and leaving the
community heads to be appointed by the government.
It's hard to say now which option will have more appeal for the
authorities but one can assume that the latter will strive to pass
the first one. Why?
For the post-Soviet Armenian authorities the issue of elective
mayoralty was an argumentative issue. Neither the former nor the
present-day presidents and authorities wanted to have elective
mayoralty in Yerevan. While taking the mayor's office, Vano Siradekhian
openly stated that it is inadmissible to have elective mayor. The
same opinion dominates today, and the authorities stubbornly refuse
to yield to the EU's demand. Elective mayoralty used to be viewed as
a threat to the executive power as the overwhelming majority of our
country's human and natural resources is concentrated in the capital.
Therefore, the option of elective mayor and community heads is
preferable for the authorities. The danger of this option lies in the
fact that Yerevan will get divided and cease being one united organism
with all negative consequences stemming out. This separates Yerevan
with its mayor and community heads tangled up in their interests
and powers, with no vertical subordination to the authorities and
consequent irresponsibility. This may suit well for the authorities
but would be disastrous for the capital.
The mess in the city construction will continue, green zones will
keep vanishing, garbage-collecting and transport issues will remain
unsolved as the mayor and community heads will go on blaming each
other for the city's problems.
For Yerevan and its residents elective mayor and appointed community
heads should be more preferable as it will help keep the capital
united, will secure vertical subordination and will make clear who
is responsible for city maintenance. For the abovementioned reasons,
it's hard though to believe that this option will be chosen.